JUDGMENT S.N. JHA, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking in substance a direction restraining the Investigation Bureau of the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department and its officials from making any inquiry or investigation in respect of the management and affairs of the petitioner-college. The petitioner's case is as follows:– 2. The petitioner-college, namely, S.M. Zareef College of Education is a minority institution established by Rauf Muslim Jamia, a Trust registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is said that in order to achieve its aims and objects and to impart teachers training education the Society established the college in the year 1990. After establishing the college for which no permission was required under law, the society requested the State Government to appoint an inspection team which in course of time• submitted its report on 5.10.1997. As in spite of a favourable report, no decision was being taken by the Government, the students of the college came to this court in CWJC No. 617 of 1998. By order dated 28.1.1988, the University was directed to take decision in accordance with law. Upon being satisfied with the inspection report that the college fulfilled the necessary norms, on 9.2.1988 the L.N. Mithila University (in short, the University) granted affiliation to the college for the Sessions 1995-96 and 1996-97. Pursuant to the said decision, the students were allowed to appear in the examination for the Sessions 1995-96 and 1996-97 and their result was also published. In the meantime, the Parliament enacted a special law called 'National Council of Teacher Education Act, 1993' to provide norms and standards for a planned and coordinated teacher education system. It is said that in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, the petitioner-college applied for its recognition. After certain queries which were adequately replied to the Eastern Regional Committee of the Council by letter dated 6.8.1998 allowed the petitioner-college to continue as per the rules of the University until final decision by the Committee. The request for recognition was finally rejected by the Eastern Regional Committee against which the college has preferred appeal before the National Council which is pending. 3. In the meantime, it is said, at the instance of the Chancellor a Vigilance enquiry regarding grant of education degrees by the teachers training colleges under the L.N. Mithila University has been instituted. The request for recognition was finally rejected by the Eastern Regional Committee against which the college has preferred appeal before the National Council which is pending. 3. In the meantime, it is said, at the instance of the Chancellor a Vigilance enquiry regarding grant of education degrees by the teachers training colleges under the L.N. Mithila University has been instituted. On 17.4.1999, a questionnaire was served on the college under the signature of the Additional S.P., Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, Investigation Bureau. On the same day a team of the officers of the Vigilance Department came to the college and seized certain documents. 4. Shri Yogendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would appear from the questionnaire, marked Annexure-11 to the writ petition that the Vigilance Department seeks to make inquiry into the management of the college. The college being a private unaided college, it stands out of the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Vigilance Department/police has no jurisdiction to make any inquiry or investigation. The Vigilance Department/police has jurisdiction to make investigation only with respect to and against public servants falling under the mischief of that Act. According to the counsel it is only the Eastern Regional Committee/National Council, established under the National Council of Teachers Education Act, 1993 or the Academic Council of the University which is competent to make inquiry in respect of the management and affairs of the college. Shri Mishra also challenged the authority of the Chancellor to direct inquiry/investigation by the Vigilance Department. He submitted that the powers of the Chancellor are enumerated in Section 9 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 which does not confer any such power upon him. In sum, the submission of the counsel was that any inquiry in relation to the management and affairs of the petitioner-college can be made only by the Eastern Regional Committee/National Council under the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 or by the Academic Council under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. Neither the Chancellor has any jurisdiction to get any inquiry/investigation made by the Vigilance Department nor the Vigilance Department has jurisdiction to make any inquiry/investigation at the behest of the Chancellor, thus encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the said authorities under the said two Acts. 5. Neither the Chancellor has any jurisdiction to get any inquiry/investigation made by the Vigilance Department nor the Vigilance Department has jurisdiction to make any inquiry/investigation at the behest of the Chancellor, thus encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the said authorities under the said two Acts. 5. In course of hearing Shri Mishra referred to certain documents to contend that the claim of the petitioner-college as a teacher training college is genuine and bona fide which fulfils the requisite conditions for grant of affiliation/recognition/approval by the concerned authorities. I do not wish to go into the merit of the claim of the petitioner as a genuine and bona fide teachers training college. That is not the subject-matter of this case. Besides, appeal against the decision of the Regional Committee is pending before the National Council and the question as to whether the petitioner-college is entitled to recognition is to be considered by the authorities under the said Act. It is not in dispute that no teachers training college can be allowed to run without the approval of the council/committee under the provisions of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993. The scope of the present writ petition is quite limited and I have only to see whether the Investigation Bureau of the Vigilance Department has jurisdiction to make inquiry/investigation of the kind. 6. Shri Bibhuti Prasad Pandey, learned counsel for the Vigilance Department submitted that what the Vigilance Department/police is investigating is the conduct of the concerned officers of the L.N. Mithila University and the State Government. In course of the investigation, the vigilance police came across certain materials which require explanation by the authorities of the petitioner-college and that is how the questionnaire was served. Counsel stated that the police want to know as to how the students of 1995-96 and 1996-97 Sessions were allowed to appear when the petitioner who had moved this court in CWJC No. 617 of 1998 belonged to 1992-93 batch. He pointed out that taking advantage of the order of this Court dated 28.1.1998 passed in the aforesaid case application was made for grant of affiliation for the period 1995-96 and 1996-97 which was allowed within 12 days of the High Court's order on 9.2.1998. 7. He pointed out that taking advantage of the order of this Court dated 28.1.1998 passed in the aforesaid case application was made for grant of affiliation for the period 1995-96 and 1996-97 which was allowed within 12 days of the High Court's order on 9.2.1998. 7. It was submitted that in terms of rule 6 of the Rules framed under the Bihar Non-Government Physical Training College and Non- Government Teachers Training College and Non-Government Primary Teachers Training College (Control and Regulation) Act, 1982, the inspection is required to be made by the nominee of the Director (Research and Training) Government of Bihar, the Regional Deputy Director of Education and the Principal of the Government Teachers Training College of the Division where the college in question is situated, but in the present case inspection was made by the Dean of Education, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur cum Principal, Teachers Training College, Turki, Muzaffarpur (convener) and two lecturers of Government Teachers Training College, Chapra and Samastipur (Members) and it was on the basis of the report submitted by them on 5.10.1987 that the affiliation was eventually granted by the University on 9.2.1998. 8. Shri Pandey submitted that the claim of the petitioner-college as a bona fide institution is based on ownership of the land with building but in course of investigation it has transpired that the two sale deeds and the rent receipts which are the basis of the claim of ownership are forged. He pointed out that the inspection team of the Eastern Regional Committee which inspected the college on 17.11.1998 concluded that the college has no infrastructure and "it is hardly existent". On the basis of the result of inspection, the Eastern Regional Committee rejected the application for approval on 26.4.1999. 9. According to Shri Pandey, while investigating the conduct of the officials of the University and the State Government in allowing application on 9.2.1998, even though the college did not possess the necessary infrastructure and was not eligible for such affiliation, it was considered appropriate to serve the questionnaire under Section 160 Cr. P.C. calling upon the petitioner-college to explain the facts. 10. Shri Shivendra Kishore, learned counsel for the Chancellor stated that the Chancellor has directed inquiry by the Vigilance Department on receipt of information regarding commission of large scale irregularities in the matter of grant of permission affiliation recognition to Teachers Training Colleges. P.C. calling upon the petitioner-college to explain the facts. 10. Shri Shivendra Kishore, learned counsel for the Chancellor stated that the Chancellor has directed inquiry by the Vigilance Department on receipt of information regarding commission of large scale irregularities in the matter of grant of permission affiliation recognition to Teachers Training Colleges. He submitted that by Annexure-11, the petitioner-college has merely been asked to produce papers and furnish certain informations to which the petitioner cannot make any objection. He submitted that the writ petition is pre-mature and fit to be dismissed on this score alone. 11. I have considered the submission of the counsel for the parties. Although, as indicated above, I do not wish to go into the merit of the claim of the petitioner as a genuine and bona fide institution imparting education in teachers training course, I consider it appropriate to refer to the findings of the Inspection team of the Eastern Regional Committee, without expressing any opinion of my own, as hereunder:– "The team went to the Shigo Mohalla and made intensive enquiry from the local citizen about the college, but the citizens pleased (sic) absolute ignorance about the existence of any institution named S.M. Zareef College of education. At last the team could only locate a small Signboard on a telephone post near a bangle shop. On enquiry from the owner of the shop, the team was informed that a man frequented the locality now and then, but there was nothing in the locality to be called a College of Education. After the team returned to the ancient Home, someone came on a motorcycle and informed that the college had been shifted to the Mabby Mohalla of the town some eight-nine kms from Shigo. On his request the team visited the new site of the college in Mabby Mohalla located at a lonely place in a flood affected zone. It has a watched building with unplastered walls and tiled roof. It was a very damp place. The so called college building had been under knee-deep water during the last rainy season augmented by the Bagmati Floods. The site was not at all fit for a college. The building has only three rooms. The Secretary told the team that the deal for the purchase of a new buildings in another place had been finalised and it was going to be registered soon. The site was not at all fit for a college. The building has only three rooms. The Secretary told the team that the deal for the purchase of a new buildings in another place had been finalised and it was going to be registered soon. The college has no infrastructure. It is hardly existent. Its claim for recognition may be outright rejected." 12. It would also be useful to refer to the relevant part of the order of the Eastern Regional Committee dated 26.4.1999 by which the application for recognition was rejected. "WHEREAS, the applicant insitution viz. S.M. Zareef College of Education, Mohalla Sher Mohd. Bhigo, P.O. Lalbagh, District Darbhanga, Bihar had applied for recognition under Section 14 of the NCTE Act, 1993 to the ERC, NCTE. AND WHEREAS the institution was allowed to continue from the beginning of the academic session 1998-99 vide ERC Letter No. BR- S/E-1/98-ERC/7036 dated 6.11.1998. AND WHEREAS upon the directions of the Eastern Regional Committee, a visit of the applicant institution was carried out by a visiting team constituted by the Regional Committee. AND WHEREAS on 2nd February, 1999 the Regional Committee, after considering the report of the visiting team as well as other relevant materials furnished by the application institution, had opined that the applicant institution does not fulfill the requirements for recognition and issued a notice on 18.2.1999 to the applicant institution under proviso to Section 14(3)(b) of the NCTE Act, 1993, thereby giving an opportunity to the said applicant institution to make a written representation in this behalf. AND WHEREAS the applicant institution had submitted representation dated 12.9.1999. The said representation of the institution as well as other documents and materials submitted were dully considered by tile chairperson, Regional Committee on 23.4.1999, who came to the conclusion that the orders for allowed to continue from the session 1998-99 by the institution was obtained by misrepresentation of facts and thus recognition to the said institution be refused effective from the session 1998-99 for the following reasons:– 1. There is no institution existing at the address given by the institution i.e. at Mohalla Sher Mohammad Shigo, P.O. Lalbagh, Darbhanga-846004. 2. The institution had grossly inadequate infrastructure and has only three rooms in dilapidated conditions in the name of building, even at the address where the institution is claimed to be existing i.e. MABBI, Darbhanga. There is no institution existing at the address given by the institution i.e. at Mohalla Sher Mohammad Shigo, P.O. Lalbagh, Darbhanga-846004. 2. The institution had grossly inadequate infrastructure and has only three rooms in dilapidated conditions in the name of building, even at the address where the institution is claimed to be existing i.e. MABBI, Darbhanga. Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered that recognition to S.M. Zareef College of Education, Mohalla Sher Mohammad Shigo, P.O. Lalbagh, Darbhanga now claimed to be at MABSI, Darbhanga is hereby refused w.e.f. the session 1998-99." It would thus appear that the decision was taken after giving full opportunity to the petitioner-college. 13. Coming to the question as to whether the Vigilance police is competent to make an inquiry of the nature indicated by Annexure- 11, it may be stated that till date no case has been instituted against the petitioner-college and/or its authorities. The case which has been instituted relates to the conduct of the officers of the L.N. Mithila University and the State Government. They, undisputedly come within the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act. If that is so, I fail to understand as to how the Vigilance police can be precluded from making any inquiry or investigation against any persons, who although not a public servant within the meaning of the Prevention of Corruption Act is alleged to be the ultimate beneficiary when the whole case is based on conspiracy. In response to the pointed question as to how there can be separate investigation of the same case-by the vigilance police so far as the public servants are concerned and by the district police so far as others are concerned, counsel submitted that the district police has jurisdiction to investigate cognizable cases and where the case is sought to be instituted against a private person, it should be investigated by the district police. 14. The submission is wholly misconceived and, if I may say so, an argument of desperation. What the vigilance police is investigating is a case in which public servants are involved. The case, so far as others are concerned, cannot be split up. There cannot be two parallel investigations in respect of the same case. Besides, neither the petitioner nor the court can assume that the impugned inquiry/investigation is being made against the petitioner-college as accused. What the vigilance police is investigating is a case in which public servants are involved. The case, so far as others are concerned, cannot be split up. There cannot be two parallel investigations in respect of the same case. Besides, neither the petitioner nor the court can assume that the impugned inquiry/investigation is being made against the petitioner-college as accused. The authorities of the college may be as potential witnesses, they may ultimately be arrayed as accused they may be left out altogether. At this stage they cannot make any grievance. 15. The submission that the scope of enquiry, as indicated by Annexure-11, falls within the realm of enquiry into the management and affairs of the college cannot be accepted. The object of the impugned enquiry/investigation is not the same as the enquiry/ investigation contemplated under the National Council for Teachers Education Act. The impugned enquiry relates to commission of cognizable offences coming under the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner cannot contend that since it has been granted affiliation by the University and at one stage the Eastern Regional Committee permitted it to continue the college as per the rules of the university and the appeal against the ultimate decision is pending the vigilance police cannot make any enquiry or investigation. The role of the officers of the university is itself under cloud and subject-matter of investigation. It is therefore, futile to argue that decision of the University dated 9.2.1998 granting affiliation to the petitioner-college precludes the enquiry by the vigilance police. So far as the orders/decision of the Eastern Regional Committee are concerned, the contents of its report and order have already been quoted above, and if the facts stated therein are true, prima face, it may be difficult for the petitioner to explain as to how the university granted affiliation and its students were allowed to appear. 16. All said and done, no case has so far been formally instituted against the petitioner-college and/or its officers. If a case is ultimately instituted or they are included in the array of the accused in the case already instituted, it is open to them to take recourse to the remedy as may be available to them under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Constitution of India. The stand of the respondents that the petition is pre-mature, in my opinion, is well founded. The stand of the respondents that the petition is pre-mature, in my opinion, is well founded. No ground whatsoever has been made out to interfere with the impugned enquiry/investigation at this stage. 17. In the above premises, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.